Electroencephalogram as an indicator of cerebral ischemia.
To the Editor: We read the article by Adams et al. [1] with great interest since we have more than a 4-year experience using the CIMON automated electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis program. As we have not experienced the high false-positive rate noted in their study, we were initially perplexed as to how their results were possible. This feeling is further highlighted by the work of Jonkman et al. [2], who compared the results of cerebral blood flow studies, conventional EEG analysis, and neurometric EEG analysis in patients having a history of stroke or transient ischemic attacks using univariate and multivariate parameters. With respect to accurate prediction of patients having a positive history of previous ischemic events, the neurometric EEG analysis approach showed a 50% improvement over visual analysis of conventional EEG. The false-positive rate derived from a concurrent control (normal) population was 3%. These results stand in stark contrast to those obtained for studies carried out under general anesthesia [2,3]. This prompts then a consideration of the sensitivity and specificity of the current implementation of the automated neurometric analytic approach used in the CIMON program. With regard to sensitivity, there is ample evidence (Harvey Edmonds, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Louisville Medical School, personal communication) that CIMON detects ischemia when an alternate method is used to herald its occurrence (i.e., transcranial infrared spectroscopy and transcranial Doppler). It is probable that Adams et al. failed to detect ischemia because at their time of measurement there was none. Thus, the methodology used by CIMON is probably not discredited on this account. Specificity, however, is another story. Their approach was to collect a baseline of single epochs arriving at an array of mean frequency band amplitudes. A standard deviation was accordingly calculated for each parameter mean based on an average of 24 single epochs. They then compared sliding averaged updates (consisting of 3, 10, and 20 averaged single epochs). As their epoch count increased from three to 20, their false-positives likewise increased (see Table 1in [1]). Arithmetically, the results represented in Table 1of the article by Adams et al. are anomalous. The mean value of relative delta lasting for a minimum of 5 min (the definition of cerebral dysfunction) taken across updated subsets consisting of sliding averages of 10 to 20 epochs cannot occur more frequently than the occurrences across a subset consisting of a sliding average of three epochs. This is because one is comparing the same EEG populations to each other (absence of ischemia, anesthetic, temperature, and ETCO2 change). As the number of epochs increases in the update (of any sample of sliding averages), its mean should be closer to the self-norm mean. We have simulated the authors' use of the CIMON program in a series of normal anesthetized patients and have confirmed their results. Their approach, however, differs from our use of the CIMON program, as we use sliding averages having the same number of epochs as the updates to generate a self-norm. In our experience, this markedly reduces the false-positives, which occur briefly, never lasting for more than 1-2 min. Such disparate results suggest a problem in the implementation of the software. The manufacturer of the software (Cadwell Laboratories, Inc., Kennewick, WA) has been advised of this problem and is working to correct it. Nevertheless, the CIMON program is an experimental implementation of an automated use of neurometric analysis, and studies like that by Adams et al. are important and useful for detecting errors in its computerized implementation. We therefore agree with the authors that caution is advised when using automated programs for analyzing EEG. This, however, in no way detracts from the neurometric approach; it detracts only from its current implementation. Lavern D. Gugino, PhD, MD Linda S. Aglio, MD Department of Anaesthesia Harvard Medical School Boston, MA 02115 E. Roy John, PhD Brain Research Laboratories New York, NY 10016
Read more